Reconceptualizing Dialogue in Environmental Public Participation

Reconceptualizing Dialogue in EnvironmentalPublic Participation

Jennifer Duffield Hamilton and Caitlin Wills-Toker

In this article we argue that the attempt to overcome technical dominance with democratic procedureshas reduced communication to fair procedural rules that do not fully recognize the rhetoricalfunctions of dialogue. The meaning generation process, although important, is not sufficientlyaccounted for in current participation theories and models. Here, we use Mikhail Bakhtin’s dialogicperspective to explore a “sense-making” discourse that includes embracing differences, generatingnew meanings, and engaging in an open-ended dialogue. This mode of discourse works to constructunderstanding through a multi-voiced, ongoing struggle among perspectives. It intermingles with aproblem-solving discourse focused on developing agreement among disparate views within demo-cratic processes. These types of discourse have differing, yet complimentary goals and we see themas alternating throughout public participation to encourage long-term interaction and relationshipbuilding. We highlight techniques that illustrate some ways of encouraging a sense-making discourseand touch upon several lessons they provide for implementing this type of discourse withindemocratic models.

KEY WORDS: public participation, dialogue, Bakhtin, dialogic, environment

Introduction

Over the last several decades, environmental public participation programshave developed in an atmosphere of public alienation and distrust of governmentinstitutions (Laird, 1989). Researchers and practitioners have turned to more directparticipation approaches based on democratic principles to enable participants to“co-determine” decisions with agency officials rather than simply react to expertassessments (Fiorino, 1989, 1996; Juanillo & Scherer, 1995; Laird, 1993; Renn, 1992;Renn, Webler, & Wiedemann, 1995; Waddell, 1996).

Many of the models that attempt to remedy traditional decide-announce-defend approaches to decision making are being accomplished through formatssuch as workshops, roundtables, collaborative learning efforts, or citizen advi-sory groups that allow participants to learn about and discuss the issues and tointeract over an extended period of time (Daniels & Walker, 2001; Fiorino, 1990).Research found that these more intense efforts, which are often based onextended dialogue, may improve decisions (Beierle, 2002; Blatner, Carroll,

The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2006

755

0190-292X © 2006 The Policy Studies JournalPublished by Blackwell Publishing. Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ.

Daniels, & Walker, 2001; Bradbury & Branch, 1999), foster interpersonal rela-tionships (Graham, 2004; Hailey, 2001; Tuler & Webler, 1999), and enable par-ticipants over time to intermingle technical and cultural discourses in theirappeals (Hamilton, 2003).

In spite of such successes, this trend raises an important question about theways in which we envision dialogue. Many of the early attempts to improveparticipation proposed procedures to ensure equality, openness, rational delibera-tion, and consensus (Bohman, 1997; Gastil, 1993; Gutmann & Thompson, 1996;Plevin, 2000; Renn et al., 1995; Webler, 1995). However, these produced mixedresults (Farrell, 1999; John & Mlay, 1999; Santos & Chess, 2003; Spyke, 1999). Someargue that such democratic procedures leave little room for the exploration ofother essential qualities of public dialogue such as disagreement, diversity, andpower (Edelman, 2001; Hauser, 2004; Mansbridge, 1983; Mouffe, 1999; Wills-Toker,2001).

In short, the attempt to overcome technical dominance with democraticprocedures has had the effect of reducing communication to fair procedural rulesthat do not recognize the full rhetorical complexity of public dialogue (DeLuca,1999; Glover, 2000; Graham, 2004; Kaminstein, 1996; Katz & Miller, 1996; Rowan,1994). Meaning generation or the sense-making process that is a part of publicparticipation is not sufficiently accounted for in current participation theories andmodels (Hailey, 2001). The sense-making process refers to negotiating and con-structing knowledge in and through talk in which participants influence oneanother and produce new meanings (Graham; Katz & Miller; Rowan; Waddell,1996). Additionally, as Kaminstein describes, a rhetorical understanding of publicparticipation can “help to prevent the democratic process from ignoring, quieting,or suppressing dissent” (p. 458).

In this article, we argue that a dialogic orientation may enhance currentparticipation models by recognizing two types of discourse and the need to shiftback and forth between them in the process of dialogue. Mansbridge (1983)contends that the complex nature of public dialogue demands such shifting. Onetype of discourse might be thought of as a problem-solving discourse that tendstoward agreement among diverse interests to decide a course of action and theother as a sense-making discourse, which builds understanding of similarities anddifferences among relative perspectives. We envision these as modes of discoursethat can—and should—alternate depending on the goals of the interaction(Wertsch, 1987).

Sense-making discourse is especially important in processes that attempt toinform decision making through collaboration among governments and localcommunities and that rely on dialogue, learning, analysis, and relationship build-ing to accomplish such collaboration. These types of collaborations are currentlybeing attempted for a variety of environmental, risk, and health issues such ashazardous waste cleanup, facility sitings, and natural resource management. Inthese processes, the problem-definition stage and solution-definition stage areappropriate spaces for encouraging a dialogic discourse whereas stages such asdecision making would require problem-solving discourse (National Research

756 Policy Studies Journal, 34:4

Council [NRC], 1996). If modes of discourse change based on the stages and goals,then these discourses would need to be learned by participants including whenand how they shift.

In the remainder of this article we review the underpinnings of many modelsof public participation and elaborate on their focus on fair procedural rules andproblem-solving discourse. Then, we introduce the work of Mikhail Bakhtin (1981)as a foundation for conceptualizing sense-making discourse and a means forrecognizing rhetorical functions of public dialogue. We describe techniques thathave created sense-making discourse as part of public participation efforts anddiscuss lessons and insights garnered from those examples about implementingthe concept of sense making. Finally, we reflect on the implications for the publicparticipation field of viewing public dialogue as an intermingling between sensemaking and problem solving.

Democratic Public Participation

Recognizing the limitations of “decide-announce-defend” approaches to deci-sion making, scholars and practitioners alike have advanced a variety of modelsin an effort to improve traditional public participation. Many attempt to do this bycreating ways for participants to “co-determine” decisions with agency officials(Fiorino, 1996, p. 201). In an article that has been influential in this literature,Fiorino (1989) advanced a set of criteria that outlined such co-determinationincluding direct participation, participation on an equal basis, face-to-face inter-action over time, and the ability to share in decision making. Scholars alsoattempted to improve participation by contrasting a “one-way” transfer of infor-mation from experts to citizens with a “two-way” exchange of both informationand values that creates a role for citizen knowledge in decision making ( Juanillo& Scherer, 1995; Waddell, 1996). Building relationships of trust is another way toimprove participation that is emphasized in approaches such as Senecah’s (2004)“Trinity of Voice” which looks at access, standing, and influence. Finally, publicparticipation studies increasingly focused on opportunities for learning and analy-sis of complex technical issues in interactive group settings as a way to improveearly participation models. The “collaborative learning” approach developed byDaniels and Walker (1996, 2001) as well as Laird’s (1993) “participatory analysis,”for example, emphasize the importance of collaboratively defining problems andevaluating possible solutions as participants engage in mutual learning and anexploration of values.

In many of these attempts, democratic procedures guide decision makingabout environmental, risk, or health issues. This section explores some assump-tions underpinning these procedural guidelines and provides a foundation for ourconsideration of how a Bakhtinian perspective on sense-making discourse mayenhance public participation.

Many democratic approaches rely on the ideas proposed by deliberativedemocratic theorists (Karis, 2000). These theories often begin with Jurgen Haber-mas’ popular notion of the public sphere. Grounded in the example of the

Hamilton/Wills-Toker: Reconceptualizing Dialogue 757

European bourgeois in the mid-nineteenth century, Habermas theorized that aforum of like-minded citizens debating equally in an open public arena providedthe most authentic representation of public opinion. Issues of power and moneyappeared minimal as the force of the best argument guided deliberation (Haber-mas, 1992). Through rationally motivated debate, individuals transcended per-sonal interests and reached a mutual understanding of the general public will,which was ultimately established through consensus (Habermas). Later, Habermasextracted equality, open access, rational argument, mutual understanding, andconsensus as conditions of the ideal speech situation (Habermas, 2001). He arguedthat these elements must be present in order to gain a sense of authentic publicopinion.

Many political theorists quickly recognized the potential of deliberative quali-ties as guiding ideals for contemporary public deliberation. These theories remainunited by the basic goal of identifying procedures for a fair deliberative processthat enables political decisions to be “considered legitimate expressions of thecollective will of the people” (Hauptmann, 1999, p. 2). Three deliberative proce-dural requirements remain fairly consistent across theories. First, equality amongcitizen participants is required for deliberation (Bohman, 1997; Button & Mattson,1999; Gastil, 1993). Second, discussion among equal participants must be free andopen. Deliberation is free and open if “group members have equal and adequateopportunities to speak, neither withholding information nor verbally manipulatingone another, and are able and willing to listen” (Gastil, p. 6). As deliberators followthis rational process of offering their perspective, proposing ideas, and makingcompromises based on the better argument, their opinions come together to forma “collective will, a joint intension” (Richardson, 1997, p. 338). Third, all agree thatthe end result of the deliberative process should be some type of decision that fixesthe general public will. For many deliberative theorists, consensus is the bestdecision-making method. According to Barber (1984), in a consensus decision,citizens come to “common agreement on an issue, values, or the direction of afuture course of action” (611). Gastil (1993) contends that this type of decision-making is most suited to deliberative groups since it ensures that every memberhas an equal input into decision making, and provides the “surest safeguardagainst the unequal distribution of power” (51). Since deliberative decisions aredeemed more rational, more representative, and more legitimate (Dryzek &Braithwaite, 2000; Mendelberg & Oleske, 2000), this is a very attractive model forpublic participation.

However, the push toward similarity and agreement generates procedureswhere conflict and difference can be lost. Tuler (2000) contends that current publicparticipation processes “often have a one-sided emphasis on ‘common ground’and ‘mutual understanding’. With this view, however, diversity, difference, con-flict, and incompatibility are at risk of getting lost in our understandings ofdialogue and discourse” (13). These are essential aspects of public deliberation thatcan be dissolved in consensus processes (Bohman, 1997; Chambers, 1996; Gastil,1993; McCombs & Reynolds, 1999; Spragens, 1998). While procedural-basedapproaches do recognize the incorporation of a diversity of perspectives, the


assumption of equality attempts to erase certain differences such as the “asym-metries of power and expertise within the structures of modern, bureaucratizedpolitics” (Button & Mattson, 1999, p. 610). However, differences in qualities suchas knowledge, resources, and communication competence do exist (Asen, 1999;McLeod et al., 1999). Those with more power often assert their authority (Cooke& Kothari, 2001; Wills-Toker, 2005). Less powerful participants may then besilenced and may fail to air points of disagreement (Edelman, 2001). Yet differencesand diversity are necessary to fully understand the problems and possible solu-tions, and when they are not accounted for, the process may disintegrate(Coglianese, 1999; Ingham, 1996; Kaminstein, 1996).

In the following section we introduce a broader concept for civic dialogue thatenhances public participation approaches by integrating sense-making discoursewith problem-solving discourse. According to Hauser (2004), the identification ofa more complex notion of dialogue is the “central issue confronting the currentdiscussion of civic engagement” (p. 13).

A Dialogic Perspective

Bakhtin envisions spoken language, just as written language, to be an act ofauthorship or, as Holquist (1990) points out, of “coauthorship” (p. 13). Each personis situated within a particular circumstance and dependent on an “Other” and thecondition of being related to the other to grasp the whole of that circumstance. Aperson orders and makes sense of their world by recognizing the other and seeinghimself/herself from the perspective of, relative to, yet distinct from, that other-ness. Bakhtin (1981) calls this “simultaneity” or a condition in which the self andthe other exist as simultaneous, yet distinct.

Bakhtin assumes that there are two types of discourse: one capable of rec-ognizing and responding to Otherness and one that is not. A monologic dis-course privileges a single perspective, reduces complexity, and fails to recognizeor openly suppresses “otherness.” It is an authoritative discourse that insists onits adoption and imposes meaning on a listener. Monologic discourses “assumeno other selves beyond the one they posit as normative” (Holquist, 1990, p. 52).In contrast, a dialogic discourse is one in which multiple perspectives interactas participants recognize and respond to the viewpoints of others and developan understanding of how they relate. A dialogic discourse is “relativized,de-privileged, aware of competing definitions for the same things” (Bakhtin,1981, p. 427). With dialogic discourse we see ourselves and our world in termsof the other and we grasp the connections between them. “Heteroglossia” is theconcept Bakhtin develops to describe this quality not just among people in aninterpersonal exchange, but among what he called “languages” or patterns ofunderstanding. Bakhtin writes:

all languages of heteroglossia . . . are specific points of view on the world,forms for conceptualizing the world in words, specific world views, eachcharacterized by its own objects, meanings, and values. As such they all


may be juxtaposed to one another, mutually supplement one another,contradict one another and be interrelated dialogically. (pp. 291–2)

The languages come to “interanimate” one another and coexist as they becomerelativized. Bakhtin (1981) describes that when languages, or what could bethought of as perspectives, are “. . . closed and deaf to one another, each considersitself absolute; when one language sees itself in the light of another, ‘novelness’ hasarrived” (p. 430). By novelness, he refers to “. . . a form of knowledge that can mostpowerfully put different orders of experience—each of whose languages claimauthority on the basis of its ability to exclude others—into dialogue with eachother” (Holquist, 1990, p. 87). Once in dialogue, these perspectives or points ofview interact and engage in a “continuous, generative process” (Bakhtin, 1990[1973], p. 941).

Environmental discourses often involve individuals and groups with diversepoints of view in an effort to define the best policy or course of action. Glover(2000) argues that Bakhtin’s writings form “a theoretical foundation for a rhetoricof diversity, a dialogic rhetoric in which different points of view can interact withina single piece of discourse” (p. 38). He envisions Bakhtin’s concepts of heteroglo-ssia (the presence of multiple “languages” or viewpoints), open-endedness, andauthoritative discourses as pertinent to understanding environmental discourses.Glover concluded that forums such as public hearings and Environmental ImpactStatements do not exhibit these characteristics because of a reliance on the officialdiscourses of experts, which are authoritative or monologic in nature. They do notprovide opportunities for diverse points of view to be present and interact withoutresolution or closure. However, the incorporation of democratic procedures in aneffort to overcome such authoritative discourse has produced a new generation ofparticipation formats that rely on dialogue, therefore creating the opportunity fordialogic discourse. The remainder of this section explores three defining charac-teristics of a dialogic discourse that might allow these democratic forums to moreintentionally realize this opportunity.

These characteristics are:

1. orienting to essential differences and similarities;

2. recognizing the struggle among diverse perspectives from which new mean-ings emerge; and

3. creating a multi-voiced and ongoing dialogue that builds understanding andrelationships over a period of time.

Together these characteristics form the basis for a sense-making discourse tooperate within public participation.

Embracing Difference and “Multi-Voicedness”

Many scholars have made clear the importance of the Other in Bakhtin’s viewof dialogue (Holquist, 1990). For Bakhtin, dialogue takes place when a person


recognizes one’s self from the vantage point of the other. Cissna and Anderson(1994) describe this quality as “mutual implication” saying: “dialogue is a processin which speaker and listener interdepend, each constructing self, other, and theirtalk simultaneously” (p. 15). It is an act of coauthorship. This process should leadto the “interanimation” of perspectives in which a speaker is able to echo thevoices of other perspectives within their discourse regardless if they are inagreement. It should entail a “multi-voiced” rather than “single-voiced” quality inwhich essential differences among perspectives are retained and reflected. ForBakhtin, “. . . differences—while still remaining different—serve as the buildingblocks of simultaneity” (Holquist, p. 40). Differing viewpoints would exist assimultaneous, yet distinct. Young (1998) describes this as “openness to unassimi-lated otherness” (p. 246). When we accept that there are differences that will notbe assimilated, a view of dialogue emerges that includes incompatibility anddissensus as part of the process of orienting to one another and creating meaningsfor the situation.

Generating New Meanings

Another characteristic of dialogic discourse is the potential for new meaningcreation through intermingling and struggle among discourses. Bakhtin distin-guishes between authoritative and internally persuasive discourses. Official dis-courses such as the talk of policy or technical experts or government officials tendto be authoritative and monologic in insisting on their perspective. In contrast, aninternally persuasive discourse enters into a struggle with other such discourses,and through this struggle openly creates meaning. The goal of internally persua-sive discourse is to invite meaning rather than impose it. This perspective differsfrom more classical views of persuasion as gaining “compliance” (Herrick, 1997,p. 4). In essence, “a dialogic world is one in which I can never have my own waycompletely, and therefore I find myself plunged into constant interaction withothers—and with myself. In sum, dialogism is based on the primacy of the social,and the assumption that all meaning is achieved by struggle” (Holquist, 1990,p. 39).

Ideally, this struggle to create meaning involves the interaction of utterancesthat invite response. Statements such as thinking devices help to invite responseand generate new meanings (Ingham, 1996). A specific example of such a commentwould be when a speaker “expresses . . . critical reflection on the meaning of aprior utterance by more deeply questioning implications, assumptions, [and]contrasting points of view” (Tuler, 2000, p. 8). These utterances do not act asauthoritative statements that function to transmit existing meanings among par-ticipants. Such comments that either support the claims of others or undermine theclaims of others tend to shut down debate and cancel further reflection. In contrast,utterances that generate new meaning provide reasons for agreement or disagree-ment and invite reflection with questioning. This process of new meaning gen-eration is not a simple chain of utterances and counter-utterances or even a fairprocess of rational deliberation, but rather an interanimation where utterances


influence the meaning of other utterances (Tuler). In this sense, it is a process ofcollaboratively generating meaning, yet it is messy, often characterized by intensestruggle, diversity of style, and conflict between various positions and utterances(Burke, 1984; Edelman, 2001).

Engaging in an Open-Ended Dialogue

For Bakhtin, a dialogic discourse involves an ongoing struggle among differingperspectives that have become relativized and de-privileged as they orient to oneanother. As Cissna and Anderson (1994) make clear, a dialogic discourse is notinterested in orchestrating a specific outcome or end product. That is not to saythat decisions are not made. Decisions are made, but as Glover (2000) argues, theyare based upon

. . . a clear delineation of relative points of disagreement, differences thatare not meaningful within a particular decision-making context can beeasily identified and discounted, clearing the way for a decision basedupon a shared knowledge and understanding of where all parties stand onsubstantive issues. (pp. 51–2)

The decisions are built upon understanding gained through sense-makingdiscourse and reflect multiple voices or perspectives.

Importantly, the open-ended exchange among perspectives would continueafter a decision is made. The goal of a dialogic or “sense-making” discourse canalso be described as connection not equilibrium among diverse perspectives(Ingham, 1996). With this goal, decisions are made but they are one step in a continualprocess of connecting and orienting to one another. In turn, participation ideally wouldbe a long-term process perhaps lasting years that develops relationships andunderstandings. This thinking is in line with scholars who have identified a viewamong some participants that participation is an end in itself rather than a meansto reach a given endpoint (Hamilton, 2004; Kasperson, 1986). When public par-ticipation incorporates a dialogic discourse, issues emerge and are decided orresolved, but the engagement of diverse perspectives aware of each other and therelation among them continues and is brought to bear on emerging issues anddecision points.

Dialogic Discourse and Public Participation Techniques

A dialogic perspective suggests the importance of the above characteristics inallowing us to see public participation as sense making. Scholars advocating anunderstanding of the rhetorical functions of dialogue argue that such an under-standing is compatible with democratic approaches to participation (Katz & Miller,1996). Here, we consider how a sense-making orientation might intermingle withcurrent models through a discussion of five specific techniques. For each wedescribe the technique, discuss how it embodies dialogic characteristics to various


degrees, and touch upon how each integrates qualities of dialogue that may bede-emphasized in problem solving processes.

Situation Mapping

Sense-making discourse can be encouraged through engaging participants inlearning and analysis in group formats. Daniels and Walker (1996, 2001) havedeveloped an exercise they call “situation mapping” that is part of their collabo-rative learning (CL) approach. The CL approach grew out of the “need tomeaningfully address the multiple worldviews that arise in most environmentaland natural resource public policy decisions” (Daniels & Walker, 2001, p. 111).Daniels and Walker (2001) recognized that worldviews were deeply tied to corevalues and that a move toward convergence without recognition of differences inthese worldviews often fueled conflict, silenced individuals, or caused them towithdraw completely. In turn, their approach integrates acknowledging differentworldviews and opportunities for airing points of disagreement into the process.It “emphasizes learning about the different values and worldviews” (Daniels &Walker, 2001, p. 112), rather than seeking a convergence among them. During acollaborative learning process, participants are: “defining the problem and gener-ating alternatives [that] makes for meaningful social learning as constituencies sortout their own and others’ values, orientations, and priorities” (Daniels & Walker,1996, p. 73).

As a beginning step in this process, participants use the situation mappingexercise to construct visual representations of the players, issues, and activitiesinvolved in the situation on an overhead transparency or dry erase board. Allcomments are noted and considered even if they are controversial or tangential(Haaland & Smutko, 2005), giving participants the opportunity to air differences inperspective or points of conflict. Participants then label relationships between theseelements with action words using lines and arrows. Ideally, the result of thisprocess is a single representation co-constructed “that accurately conveys themultiple worldviews of the stakeholders” (Daniels & Walker, 2001, p. 115).

The exploration of interrelatedness among players and issues accomplishes anumber of dialogic goals. Having each participant listen to the perspectives ofother participants facilitates an understanding of the other and how their view-points coexist (Daniels & Walker, 2001). Participants may then be discouraged fromseeing their view as absolute, which may work to transform power relations(Trimbur, 1989). As participants create the map, they attempt to generate newmeaning, a new understanding of the situation that ideally retains a multiplicityof perspectives (Daniels & Walker).

As participants move into the decision stages, they develop strategies forchange that address the multiple worldviews represented (Daniels & Walker,2001). According to Daniels and Walker, retaining differences rather than trying toovercome them at the beginning of a participation effort can result in a moreproductive and respectful process and a more agreeable final decision.


Deferred Consensus

Sense-making discourse can be encouraged as well through recognition ofdissensus as a precursor to a search for agreement. Ingham (1996) uses a techniqueshe calls “deferred consensus.” The goal of this technique is for participants to“develop a consciousness of rhetorical stance, of how citizens stand in relation toeach other, given their viewpoints” (Ingham, p. 200).

Ingham identified the deferred consensus strategy in the participation effort ofa community near Yellowstone National Park. Here, participants began the processby discussing their own experiences with the land through “presentations bycommunity members and outside ‘experts,’ . . . recounting of regional and indi-vidual histories, . . . small and large group discussions” (Ingham, 1996, p. 202).Through this exploration of “different viewpoints . . . forum participants tie theideal of community to the ideal of every voice being heard, replacing, momen-tarily, the typical view of consensus, in which all community members agree toviewpoints and courses of action” (Ingham, p. 211). Once participants gain a senseof community, they may be motivated to “continue the dialogue” (Ingham, p. 209)and move toward addressing specific issues. According to Ingham, by working toestablish a sense of community and a sense of diversity, this rhetorical process can“facilitate consensus on particular issues” (Ingham, p. 209). Rather than onlyemphasizing agreement and identification, this technique also recognizes differ-ence as being vital to the dialogue and to decision making.

The deferred consensus technique accomplishes a number of dialogic goals. Asparticipants form a conceptualization of their community through the stories ofother members, they can gain a sense of the other. They may recognize not onlydiversity in opinions, but also differences in qualities such as knowledge,resources, communicative ability, and authority (Ingham, 1996). As each story,description, and presentation is offered, these utterances enter into a dialogue withone another to create a sense of community. This may be a messy, difficult process;however, as participants develop a commitment to the community, they may bemotivated to maintaining an ongoing dialogue.

Issues Forums

Sense-making discourse can be encouraged through the exploration of variousways of framing an issue. The Kettering Foundation began National Issues Forums(NIF) in 1981 to ensure a sustained public dialogue on important policy issues andteach individuals the hard work involved in making decisions (Stewart, 2005).Forums are organized by a variety of groups, individuals, and organizations tobegin the dialogue and define the issue through an awareness of other’s perspec-tives. Their main goals are establishing understanding between “people of diverseviews and experiences” as well as searching “for a common ground for action”(Kettering Foundation, 2006, http://www.nifi.org/forums) on a particular issue ofconcern, revealing an attempt to integrate the quality of diversity into thedialogues.


http://www.nifi.org/forums

Issue books developed by the Kettering Foundation act as talking points forthe forums. The topics, such as juvenile violence, money and politics, governingAmerica, public schools, alcohol abuse, the Internet, and terrorism are thosedeemed important by citizens in the National Issues Forum Network. Once anissue is chosen, The Kettering Foundation goes through extensive research toidentify a number of perspectives or frames on the issue. Each issue book outlinesthese frames and discusses basic tenets of the view as well as the values held bythose who share it. Also discussed in the booklet is the reasoning behind each viewand even some of the concerns that others may have about it (Mathews & McAfee,2003). During the NIFs, citizens work through the issue “by considering eachapproach; examining what appeals to them or concerns them, and also what thecosts, consequences, and trade-offs may be that would be incurred in followingthat approach” (Kettering Foundation, 2006, http://www.nifi.org/forums).

The discussion of various frames in the NIF forums accomplishes a number ofdialogic goals. As citizens consider each frame presented, their dialogue may takeon a multi-voiced quality. In the words of one researcher for the KetteringFoundation, citizens can relate

. . . their personal stories and experiences with the issue at hand. In doingso, they bring to the surface what is valuable to them. As others in adiverse group tell different stories, embodying values that likely divergefrom or even contradict their own, one result is often a growing recogni-tion of the complexity of the issue at hand, as well as perhaps theperception that the views of others also have some validity, given therevealed context and experience of the ‘other.’ Exploration of these diverseperspectives usually leads citizens to speak about what they are willing totrade off, as well as where there can be no compromise (Stewart, 2005,p. 2).

As Stewart describes, when they speak and listen, participants may gain asense of the other, their view, and how their own perspective stands in relation toit. Participants’ ensuing discussion of what they are willing to “trade off” or notcompromise can reveal a change in their perspective that may result from thisexperience. The new perspective would be the result of coauthorship betweenthemselves and the other participants. In addition, the dialogue can exhibitqualities of the struggle over new meaning generation. Stewart again describeshow the discourse often consists of “disparate views . . . substantive and thought-ful discussion involving sharp disagreements . . . that . . . never became acrimoni-ous” (Stewart, p. 5). This is a messy and difficult struggle over new meaninggeneration. Here, conflict is a necessary part of the decision process rather thansomething to be ignored; however, adressing it can lead citizens to later agreement(Stewart). Participants may reach consensus on a particular frame and a compli-mentary course of action that suits the community regarding the issue at hand orthey may choose to continue the dialogue through meeting again.

The Kettering Foundation does not prescribe an end point for the forumbecause they believe that the communities themselves must decide on the course


http://www.nifi.org/forums

of action that fits their needs (Stewart, 2005). At the same time, they do encouragecommunities to share the definitions of the issue that emerged from publicdiscussion with local policymakers and to continue the dialogue. The Foundationalso continues the dialogue as they revisit the issue books and check them againstthe dialogue produced in forums to make sure that they remain accurate descrip-tions of public attitude on the issue. They also continue to produce more issuebooks, train moderators, and encourage communities to hold additional forums. Inthis sense, their discourse demonstrates the dialogic quality of open-endedness.

Gaming Exercises

Sense-making discourse can be encouraged through gaming exercises thatexplore the range of possible solutions. One example of a gaming exercise was theFutureSite exercise used by the “site-specific advisory board” (SSAB) of theDepartment of Energy’s Fernald, Ohio site. The purpose of this SSAB was toprovide recommendations on cleanup and the game was used to analyze variouscleanup levels and future use scenarios for the site.

FutureSite was a board game like Monopoly that featured the site. Pokerchips were used to represent volumes and types of hazardous and nuclear waste.SSAB members moved chips representing a certain amount of waste to visualizethe volumes of waste, transportation and disposal alternatives, and costs neces-sary to achieve various levels of “clean” that would be required for variousfuture uses of the site (Fernald Citizens Task Force [FCTF], 1995). Using thisexercise, SSAB members were able to visualize relationships among the trade-offsinvolved with various options. Applegate and Sarno (1997) explain: “the exerciseprovided a tool for understanding and discussing the difficult interactions ofdiverse risks, future uses, levels of soil contamination, and surface and ground-water exposures” (p. 22).

The voicing and exchanging of diverse opinions about how clean the siteshould be, where to dispose of the waste, and how to use the land in the futureaccomplishes a number of dialogic goals. Through this process, their dialogue tookon the quality of “multi-voicedness.” As board members played the game, they sattogether, made proposals, offered reasons, made alternative proposals, and saw theimplications for waste disposal and transportation required for each future usescenario. In doing so, members (ranging from a school teacher to an Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA) official to a union member to a community groupleader) discussed each other’s perspective on how clean the site should be andwhat future uses that level of “clean” would support. They were able to see howthese views contradicted or supplemented one another and how their view stoodin relation to others’ views as they attempted to generate possible solutions.

The exercise enabled the SSAB eventually to develop formal recommendationsthat accounted for the complex interactions among health and environmentalprotection, costs, and feasibility. In one recommendation, members held competingviews concerning waste disposal options such as the view that all of the wasteshould be removed from the site or that the most appropriate solution was a


“balanced approach” in which a large volume of low-level waste would bepermanently stored on site while a smaller volume of high-level waste would bedisposed elsewhere (FCTF, 1995). The recommendation of the board was to adoptthe balanced approach, but their discourse summarizing this recommendationcaptured the competing views and conveyed respect for them. Importantly, ratherthan just reflecting agreement on the recommendation, the SSAB report reflecteda struggle among views to find a “balanced” alternative through detailed descrip-tions of their process. In short, using this technique, the board was able to developa multi-voiced dialogue from which solutions were derived and to reflect pointsof conflict in their report.

Recognizing and Validating Underlying Values

A sense-making discourse may be encouraged by developing a statement ofvalues. As they were forming as a board, the Fernald SSAB described above usedanother technique to define a common basis for evaluating information, alterna-tives, and priorities. The board accomplished this by developing a set of “consensusvalues” that reflect shared values driving various viewpoints held by its members.The board agreed upon values such as environmental, social and human, eco-nomic, long-term management, and general use categories. For example, includedin the list of environmental values was: “minimize impacts on the environmentduring remediation” and “ensure that any waste left on site be controlled toprevent further contamination of the Great Miami Aquifer” (FCTF, 1995, p. 24).These consensus values were used to develop “discrete decision criteria” which theSSAB relied upon to evaluate alternative recommendations they could make.Decision criteria included items such as “long-term safety, short-term risks, on-sitedisposal requirements, impact on natural resources, transportation and off-sitedisposal requirements, community impacts and benefits, and cost” (FCTF, p. 25).Various alternatives were compared to these criteria to evaluate how well they metthe goals of the board.

Creating a statement of their values achieved a number of dialogic goals.Beginning its deliberations in this way involved the SSAB members in a discussionof their underlying perspectives. As they discussed the values important to them,members had the opportunity to develop an understanding of their own andothers’ priorities and expectations in relation to one another. Their views became“relativized” and “de-privileged” through this process. They suspended ordelayed problem-solving discourse and instead focused on understanding their“relatedness” as a starting point for a process that may or may not eventually leadto consensus. Talking about values and not problems, solutions, or positions,emphasized the importance of recognizing and validating one another’s views andof developing relationships as the basis for working as a board. An SSAB reportdescribes: “the consensus values developed early in the process provided the bestoverall understanding of the guiding issues which the Task Force (the SSAB)believes should be followed in contemplating the future use of Fernald” (FCTF,1995, p. 48). This process accomplishes “deferred consensus” since its focus is on


uncovering connections among views, producing understanding, and guiding laterdiscussions of problems and solutions. By integrating the essential quality ofdifference, the technique produced a more complete understanding of participants’underlying values.

Discussion

The techniques highlighted in the previous section illustrate some ways ofencouraging a sense-making discourse. Here, we touch upon several lessons andinsights uncovered by these examples that are associated with implementing it inan ongoing participation process.

First, the examples from practice illustrate that sense-making discourse may beparticularly useful during problem-definition and solution-definition stages of decision-making processes. Most of the techniques we identified were used at the begin-ning of a process as participants oriented to the problem at hand and to oneanother. At this point a focus on understanding rather than agreement is impor-tant to building the “relatedness” among self and other that sustains relation-ships and serves as a foundation for later discussions of a course of action.Furthermore, conflict is often high at these stages and it is often squelched.However, voicing dissenting views and allowing them to intermingle is impera-tive to developing a full understanding of the issue before moving to solutionsor decisions (Daniels & Walker, 2001; Ingham, 1996). As Ingham argued with“deferred consensus,” if a sense of community is not built at the beginning, thenproblem-solving stages might be derailed by unexplored disagreements. Sense-making discourse is also useful at the solution-definition stage because it mayuncover a broad range of possibilities in the process of identifying and under-standing viewpoints. It may, therefore, generate alternatives not previously envi-sioned by participants in ways similar to brainstorming exercises in team effortssuch as the FutureSite exercise.

Second, while exploring and valuing diversity and dissent is especially important atthese specific points, ideally, it should continue throughout the process in order for thediscourse to maintain a dialogic quality. In turn, following any agreement, recom-mendation, or decision, the participants should return to a sense-making discoursein order to reorient to the range of perspectives and the connections among themas they relate to newly emerging issues. In this way we can envision the two typesof discourse as alternating throughout a participation process. For instance, theFernald techniques discussed above were part of a sustained participation effortthat began in the late-1980s and continues as of this writing. This case illustratesBakhtin’s notion of dialogue as an ongoing engagement and struggle amongmultiple perspectives. A process emerged over the years in which participantswere establishing perspectives first in relation to cleanup decisions in the early1990s, then to arising issues such as technical difficulties with a cleanup remedy,and later to finding a long-term steward for the site in the early 2000s (Hamilton,in press). After key decisions were made, the conversation among perspectiveskept going. The sustained nature of the relationship provided a space in which the


participants could continually reorient to one another’s priorities and expectationsin relation to these as well as other emerging issues.

Third, to achieve an open-ended dialogue in which sense making and problemsolving are interwoven would likely involve multiple techniques within a longer process.Ideally, the techniques highlighted earlier would not be implemented in isolation,but would feed into a larger process. The sustained effort at Fernald involvedmany different types of forums that evolved from a combination of grassrootsefforts (Sheak & Cianciolo, 1993) and innovative institutional programs (Brad-bury, Branch, & Malone, 2003). Participation techniques such as small groupsessions, roundtables, and workshops, in addition to the SSAB mentioned earlier,worked in combination to bring diverse views into an ongoing conversation witheach other. In this example, the sense-making discourse emerged overtime asthese practices and forums evolved and participants became invested in rela-tionship building.

Fourth, this type of dialogue would require either a dedicated public willing to committhemselves to the project or new publics to carry the conversation forward in order to beactively and consciously sustained. A key challenge of achieving an ongoing dialogueis that many situations do not have a relatively stable core of individuals dedicatedto the project or to developing long-term relationships such as that seen at Fernald.The Kettering example provides a way to account for this issue by recognizing theimpossibilities of identifying one public that will remain committed to the dia-logues over time. In turn, they expect that their public will be an ever-changinggroup of citizens. They provide the issue books and the forum guidelines as a wayto maintain the dialogue. By reading the issue books and other material preparedby the Kettering Foundation, such as their annual analyses of “what citizens aresaying” (Mathews & McAfee, 2003, p. 31), new participants gain an awareness ofthe various perspectives that have become a part of the NIFs up to that point. Suchreports offer new participants a historical basis from which they may enter thedialogue. The NIF technique gives them a way to “relativize” their own perspec-tive by comparing and relating it to those who have discussed the issue before aswell as those with whom they are presently dialoguing, allowing them to continueentering into dialogic relationships. If a specific effort does not have a dedicatedand committed public, new participants could be updated in this way.

Fifth, participants and facilitators need an understanding about when and how to shiftbetween problem-solving and sense-making discourses. Wertsch (1987) argues thatindividuals are able to shift among modes of discourse depending on the contextand institutional setting. However, knowing that discourses need to shift requiresintense focus on the situation (Mansbridge, 1983). We recognize that this may bedifficult and participants may be “stuck” in a particular mode of discourse. Forexample, some may not be ready to move from community building and under-standing to a context in which action is necessary and choices must be made.Conversely, some may be stuck in a problem-solving mode and not be ready torecognize that a new issue has emerged that requires work in reorienting toadditional perspectives. Additionally, even if participants are able to recognize thatit is time to change modes, they may not know how. This suggests that perhaps


these discourses need to be learned. Participants might require training in recog-nizing the differing goals of the discourses and the techniques that facilitate thosegoals.

A sixth issue suggested by the examples is the difficulty in constructing discourse thatreports a decision yet captures multi-voicedness and communicates dissent, conflict, andthe struggle of new meaning generation. Inevitably, some of the richness of a dialogicdiscourse will be lost when captured in written form such as a report orrecommendation. At the same time, reports should represent a diversity of viewsin order to avoid becoming a monologic, authoritarian discourse. We suggest thatany decision document should include discussions of dissenting views and pointsof disagreement as well as the final decision. Glover (2000) provides guidance onhow such a document may be prepared. In his study of an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS), Glover noted that the document includes response letters from thepublic that contain: “the seeds of dialogism because the stories are told by diversevoices in diverse languages from diverse points of view” (p. 49). Including lettersor statements from those with different perspectives or contrasting points of viewand highlighting topics of disagreement are some ways in which decision docu-ments might achieve a more multi-voiced, dialogic quality.

Finally, sense-making discourse may recognize and potentially transform differences inpower among participants depending on how it is implemented. For example, the“situation mapping” encourages participants to see their worldview as relativerather than absolute, which offers the possibility of transforming power relations.This technique could more intentionally address inequalities by using it to mapdifferences in knowledge, resources, and authority among clearly unequal partici-pants such as lay citizens and experts. During the mapping of key players andissues, participants could also map differences in communication style, revealinghow some participants may garner greater influence over others and the process.Calling attention to these and other power differences will not erase or resolve theinequalities that are an inevitable aspect of people relating, but it may make thema part of what is being discussed, which in turn offers the possibility of trans-forming those power relations. As has been pointed out in the literature, powerinequalities may lead participants to be unsatisfied with the decision (Edelman,2001). Acknowledging power differences may also diffuse conflict that mightdevelop on these grounds.

Conclusion

In this article, we have argued for a broader view of dialogue in environ-mental public participation that includes sense-making activities. Important—andsuccessful—attempts to overcome technical dominance in environmental decisionmaking with democratic processes have been based on creating procedural rulesthat ensure fairness and access. However, these rules often attempt to erasedifferences in perspectives and power and, in this sense, fail to recognize the fullrhetorical functions of public dialogue. The concept of a sense-making discourse


has much to offer public participation theory in terms of recovering dissent andincompatibility as essential features of dialoguing.

We have argued that a dialogic orientation may enhance current participationmodels by recognizing two types of discourse with differing, yet complimentarygoals and the need to shift back and forth between them in the process of dialogue.If dialogue is conceptualized as something with the ability to shift, publicparticipation processes would accommodate moments in which recognition ofagreement in decision making is the goal and others in which recognition ofsimilarities and differences in developing understanding is the goal. In this way,the concept of sense making enriches public participation theory by recovering therhetorical complexity of public dialogue.

This concept also has implications for practice. First, if qualities such asdisagreement and incompatibility are acknowledged and are made a part of theconversation, it may actually diffuse conflict at later problem-solving stages whenagreement is essential. As has been pointed out, if participants fail to see theirperspective valued, they may become aggressive, passive, or withdrawn, poten-tially fueling distrust and causing gridlock. As a result, the process is in danger ofdissolving, “the rhetorical enterprise break down, and the various factions with-draw, taking with them the chance to resolve the issue” (Ingham, 1996, p. 199).However, if sense-making discourse is interwoven at specific points and partici-pants are able to see their views as part of the conversation, it may preventparticipants from entrenching in positions that can later lead to more enduringconflicts. Second, by creating a focus on relatedness and relationship as the contextfor participation, sense-making discourse may strengthen commitment and buildtrust among participants that are needed to sustain the effort. Third, allowingdiverse views to inform the dialogue can lead to more creative solutions. Sensemaking recognizes the power of communication to “shift, change, and createshared knowledge and values critical to the joint development of a course ofaction” (Graham, 2004, p. 38). Creating a broad understanding of perspectives andvalues can form the basis for more innovative solutions. As differing worldviewsare carried through to solutions, participants also may be more accepting of thedecision.

In this way we can see how sense making may be useful in practice; however,future research should work to develop the concept further in order to understandthe appropriate balance and shifting among these two modes of discourse. Wehave identified stages during which each type of discourse is important. However,more work is needed to learn if there are stages in which both might be usefulsimultaneously, and if there are additional stages in which one is more crucial.Case studies are needed to trace the ways in which these discourses progressivelyinfluence and build upon one another leading up to a decision. This knowledgecould be very useful in teaching participants how and when to adopt thesediscourses. As the field of public participation increasingly relies on collaboration,dialogue, and group learning to improve decision making, a more complexunderstanding of dialogue is needed. The concept of sense-making discoursedeveloped here begins this conversation.


Jennifer Duffield Hamilton is a Reseach Fellow in the Center for Health andEnvironmental Communication Research at the University of Cincinnati.Caitlin Wills-Toker is an Assistant Professor at Gainesville State College.

References

Applegate, John S., and Douglas J. Sarno. 1997. “FUTURESITE: An Environmental RemediationGame-Simulation.” Simulation and Gaming 28: 13–27.

Asen, Robert. 1999. “Toward a Normative Conception of Difference in Public Deliberation.” Argumen-tation and Advocacy 35: 115–29. ProQuest database [Online]. http://www.galileo.usg.edu. AccessedJune 17, 2002.

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1990 [1973]. “Marxism and the Philosophy of Language.” In The Rhetorical Tradition:Readings from Classical Times to the Present, ed. Patricia Bizzell, and Bruce Herzberg. Boston, MA:Bedford, 928–44.

———. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays By M. M. Bakhtin, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. CarylEmerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Barber, Benjamin R. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press.

Beierle, Thomas C. 2002. “The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions.” Risk Analysis 22: 739–49.

Blatner, Keith A., Matthew S. Carroll, Steven E. Daniels, and Gregg B. Walker. 2001. “Evaluating theApplication of Collaborative Learning to the Wenatchee Fire Recovery Planning Effort.” Environ-mental Impact Assessment Review 21: 241–70.

Bohman, James. 1997. “Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom.” In Deliberative Democ-racy, ed. James Bohman, andWilliam Rehg. Cambridge, MA. MIT, 321–48.

Bradbury, Judith, and Kristi Branch. 1999. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Local Site-Specific AdvisoryBoards for U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Programs. Report PNNL-12139.Washington, DC: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Bradbury, Judith, Kristi Branch, and Elizabeth Malone. 2003. An Evaluation of DOE-EM PublicParticipation Programs. Report PNNL-14200. Washington, DC: Pacific Northwest NationalLaboratory.

Burke, Kenneth. 1984. Attitudes Toward History, 3rd edn. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Button, Mark, and Kevin Mattson. 1999. “Deliberative Democracy in Practice: Challenges and Prospectsfor Civic Deliberation.” Polity 31: 609–37.

Chambers, Simone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.

Cissna, Kenneth N., and Rob Anderson. 1994. “Communication and the Ground of Dialogue.” In TheReach of Dialogue: Confirmation, Voice, and Community, ed. Rob Anderson, Kenneth N. Cissna, andRonald C. Arnett. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 9–30.

Coglianese, Cary. 1999. “The Limits of Consensus.” Environment 41: 28–33.

Cooke, Bill, and Uma Kothari. 2001. “The Case for Participation as Tyranny.” In Participation: The NewTyranny, ed. Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari. London: Zed Books, 1–15.

Daniels, Steven, and Gregg Walker. 1996. “Collaborative Learning: Improving Public Deliberation inEcosystem-Based Management.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16: 71–102.

———. 2001. Working through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, CT:Praeger.

DeLuca, Kevin M. 1999. Image Politics: The New Rhetoric of Environmental Activism. New York: TheGuilford Press.

Dryzek, John S., and Valerie Braithwaite. 2000. “On the Prospects for Democratic Deliberation: ValuesAnalysis Applied to Australian Politics.” Political Psychology 21: 241–66.

Edelman, Murray. 2001. The Politics of Misinformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


http://www.galileo.usg.edu

Farrell, Richard T. 1999. “Aiming for Excellence: EPA’s Commitment to Innovation.” ECOStates[Online]. http://www.epa.gov. Accessed November 11, 2000.

Fernald Citizens Task Force (FCTF). 1995, July. Fernald Citizens Task Force: Recommendations on Reme-diation Levels, Waste Disposition, Priorities, and Future Use. Femald, OH: Fernald.

Fiorino, Daniel J. 1989. “Environmental Risk and Democratic Process: A Critical Review.” ColumbiaJournal of Environmental Law 14: 501–47.

———. 1990. “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms.”Science, Technology, and Human Values 15: 226–43.

———. 1996. “Environmental Policy and the Participation Gap.” In Democracy and the Environment:Problems and Prospects, ed. William M. Lafferty and James Meadowcroft. Cheltenhaum, UK:Edward Elgar Publishing, 194–212.

Gastil, John. 1993. Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision-Making and Communication. Phila-delphia, PA: New Society Publishers.

Glover, Kevin S. 2000. “Environmental Discourse and Bakhtinian Dialogue: Toward a Rhetoric ofDiversity.” In Technical Communication, Deliberative Rhetoric, and Environmental Discourse: Connec-tions and Directions, ed. Nancy W. Coppola, and Bill Karised. Stamford, CT: Ablex, 37–54.

Graham, Amanda C. 2004. “A Social Communication Perspective toward Public Participation: The Caseof the Cispus Adaptive Management Area.” In Communication and Public Participation in Environ-mental Decision Making, ed. Stephen Depoe, John Delicath, and Marie-France A. Elsenbeer. Albany,NY: SUNY Press, 35–58.

Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: BelknapPress of Harvard University.

Haaland, Kay E., and Steven L. Smutko. 2005. Handling Scientific and Technical Information in ContentiousPublic Issues: Tools and Techniques for Extension Educators. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina A&T StateUniversity Cooperative Extension.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1992. “Further Reflections on the Public Sphere.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere,ed. Craig Calhoun. Cambridge, Ma: MIT, 425–51.

———. 2001. “Truth and Society: The Discursive Redemption of Factual Claims to Validity.” In On thePragmatics of Social Interaction, ed. Barbara Fultner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 93–103.

Hailey, John. 2001. “Beyond the Formulaic: Process and Practice in South Asian NGOs.” In Participation:The New Tyranny, ed. Bill Cooke, and Uma Kothari. London: Zed Books, 88–101.

Hamilton, Jennifer D. 2003. “Exploring Technical and Cultural Appeals in Strategic Risk Communica-tion: The Fernald Radium Case.” Risk Analysis 23: 291–302.

———. 2004. “Competing and Converging Values of Public Participation: A Case Study of ParticipantViews in Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Cleanup.” In Communication and Public Partici-pation in Environmental Decision Making, ed. Stephen Depoe, John Delicath, and Marie-France A.Elsenbeer. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 59–81.

———. in press. “Convergence and Divergence in the Public Dialogue on Nuclear Weapons Cleanup.”In Nuclear Legacies: Communication, Controversy, and the Nuclear Weapons Complex, ed. Bryan Taylor,William Kinsella, Stephen Depoe, and Maribeth Metzler. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.

Hauptmann, Emily. 1999. “Deliberation=Legitimacy=Democracy.” Political Theory 27: 857–72. ProQuestDatabase [Online]. http://www.galileo.usg.edu. Accessed June 17, 2002.

Hauser, Gerard A. 2004. “Introduction.” In Rhetorical Democracy: Discursive Practices of Civic Engagement.Selected Papers from the 2002 Conference of the Rhetoric Society of America, ed. Gerard A. Hauser, andAmy Grimed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1–14.

Herrick, James A. 1997. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. Scottsdale, AR: GorsuchScarisbrick.

Holquist, Michael. 1990. Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. London: Routledge.

Ingham, Zita. 1996. “Landscape, Drama, and Dissensus: The Rhetorical Education of Red LodgeMontana.” In Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America, ed. Carl G. Herndl, C.Stuart, and Brown. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 195–212.


http://www.epa.gov

http://www.galileo.usg.edu

John, Dewitt, and Marion Mlay. 1999. “Community-Based Environmental Protection: Encouraging CivicEnvironmentalism.” In Better Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses andCommunities, ed. Ken Sexton, Alfred A. Marcus, K. William Easter, and Timothy D. Burkhardt.Washington, DC: Island, 353–76.

Juanillo, Napoleon K., and Clifford W. Scherer. 1995. “Attaining a State of Informed Judgments: Towarda Dialectical Discourse on Risk.” In Communication Yearbook 18, ed. Brant Burleson. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, 278–99.

Kaminstein, Dana S. 1996. “Persuasion in a Toxic Community: Rhetorical Aspects of Public Meetings.”Human Organization 55: 458–64.

Karis, Bill. 2000. “Rhetoric, Habermas, and the Adirondack Park: An Exemplum for Rhetoricians.” InTechnical Communication, Deliberative Rhetoric, and Environmental Discourse: Connections and Direc-tions, ed. Nancy W. Coppola and Bill Karised. Stamford, CN: Ablex, 225–36.

Kasperson, Roger. 1986. “Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for RiskCommunication.” Risk Analysis 6: 275–81.

Katz, Steven B., and Carolyn R. Miller. 1996. “The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Controversy inNorth Carolina: Toward a Rhetorical Model of Risk Communication.” In Green Culture: Environ-mental Rhetoric in Contemporary America, ed. Carl G. Herndl and Stuart Brown. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin Press, 111–40.

Kettering Foundation. 2006. About NIF Forums [Online]. http://www.nifi.org/forums/about.aspx.Accessed August 15, 2006.

Laird, Frank N. 1989. “The Decline of Deference: The Political Context of Risk Communication.” RiskAnalysis 9: 543–50.

———. 1993. “Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making.” Science, Tech-nology and Human Values 18: 341–61.

Mansbridge, Jane J. 1983. Beyond Adversarial Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mathews, David, and Noelle McAfee. 2003. Making Choices Together: The Power of Public Deliberation.Dayton, OH: The Kettering Foundation.

McCombs, Maxwell, and Amy Reynolds. 1999. The Poll with a Human Face. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Publishers.

McLeod, Jack M., Dietram A. Scheufele, Patricia Moy, Edward M. Horowitz, R. Lance Holbert, WeiwuZhang, Stephen Zubric, and Jessica Zubric. 1999. “Understanding Deliberation: The Effects ofDiscussion Networks on Participation in a Public Forum.” Communication Research 26: 743–74.

Mendelberg, Tali, and John Oleske. 2000. “Race and Public Deliberation.” Political Communication 17:169–91. EBSCOhost Database [Online]. web.ebscohost.com. Accessed June 17, 2002.

Mouffe, Chantal. 1999. “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism.” Social Research 66: 745–58.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Plevin, Arlene. 2000. “Green Guilt: An Effective Rhetoric or Rhetoric in Transition.” In TechnicalCommunication, Deliberative Rhetoric, and Environmental Discourse: Connections and Directions, ed.Nancy W. Coppola and Bill Karised. Stamford, CN: Ablex, 251–68.

Renn, Ortwin. 1992. “Concepts of Risk: A Classification.” In Social Theories of Risk, ed. Sheldon Krimskyand Dominic Golding. Westport, CN: Praeger, 53–82.

Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler, and Peter Wiedemann, eds. 1995. Fairness and Competence in CitizenParticipation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Richardson, Henry S. 1997. “Democratic Institutions.” In Deliberative Democracy, ed. James Bohman, andWilliam Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 349–82.

Rowan, Katherine E. 1994. “The Technical and Democratic Approaches to Risk Situations: Their Appeal,Limitations, and Rhetorical Alternative.” Argumentation 8: 391–409.

Santos, Susan L., and Caron Chess. 2003. “Evaluating Citizen Advisory Boards: The Importance ofTheory and Participant-Based Criteria and Practical Implications.” Risk Analysis 23: 269–80.


http://www.nifi.org/forums/about.aspx

Senecah, Susan L. 2004. “The Trinity of Voice: The Role of Practical Theory in Planning and Evaluatingthe Effectiveness of Environmental Participatory Processes.” In Communication and Public Partici-pation in Environmental Decision Making, ed. Stephen Depoe, John Delicath, and Marie-France A.Elsenbeer. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 13–34.

Sheak, Robert J., and Patricia Cianciolo. 1993. “Notes on Nuclear Weapons Plants and Their Neighbors:The Case of Fernald.” Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 5: 97–122.

Spragens, Thomas. 1998. “Book Review of Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracyby James Bohman.” Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory 5: 9.EBSCOhost Database [Online]. web.ebscohost.com. Accessed June 17, 2002.

Spyke, Nancy P. 1999. “Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making at the New Millennium:Structuring New Spheres of Public Influence.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 26:263–313.

Stewart, Philip D. 2005. Connecting the Deliberative Public to Its Elected Representatives: Research Report ona Public Voice. Atlanta, GA: The Kettering Foundation.

Trimbur, John. 1989. “Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning.” College English 51: 601–16.

Tuler, Seth. 2000. “Forms of Talk in Policy Dialogue: Distinguishing Between Adversarial and Collabo-rative Discourse.” Journal of Risk Research 3: 1–17.

Tuler, Seth, and Thomas Webler. 1999. “Voices From the Forest: What Participants Expect of a PublicParticipation Process.” Society and Natural Resources 12: 437–53.

Waddell, Craig. 1996. “Saving the Great Lakes: Public Participation in Environmental Policy.” In GreenCulture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America, ed. Carl G. Herndl and Stuart C. Brown.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 141–65.

Webler, Thomas. 1995. “ ‘Right’ Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluative Yardstick.” In Fairnessand Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, ed. OrtwinRenn, Thomas Webler, and Peter Wiedemann. Boston, MA: Kluwer, 35–86.

Wertsch, James V. 1987. “Modes of Discourse in the Nuclear Arms Debate.” Current Research on Peaceand Violence 10: 102–12.

Wills-Toker, Caitlin. 2001. “An Analysis of the Consensus-Based Participation Model in the GeorgiaPorts Authority’s Stakeholder Evaluation Group.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia.

———. 2005. “The Deliberative Ideal and Co-optation in the Georgia Ports Authority’s StakeholderEvaluation Group.” Environmental Communication Yearbook 2: 19–48.

Young, Iris. 1998. “The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference.” In Public Reason: TheInternational Research Library of Philosophy 21, ed. Fred D’Agostino and Gerald F. Gaus. Brookfield,VT: Ashgat, 225–50.


Documents

Reconceptualizing Dialogue in Environmental Public Participation